On 6/27/23 11:23, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:14 AM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 5:26 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
wrote:
The manual references asm goto as being implicitly volatile already
and that was done when as
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:14 AM Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 5:26 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > The manual references asm goto as being implicitly volatile already
> > and that was done when asm goto could not have outputs. When outputs
>
On Jun 26 2023, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote:
> diff --git a/gcc/gimplify.cc b/gcc/gimplify.cc
> index 0e24b915b8f..dc6a00e8bd9 100644
> --- a/gcc/gimplify.cc
> +++ b/gcc/gimplify.cc
> @@ -6935,7 +6935,12 @@ gimplify_asm_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq *pre_p,
> gimple_seq *post_p)
>
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 5:26 AM Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> The manual references asm goto as being implicitly volatile already
> and that was done when asm goto could not have outputs. When outputs
> were added to `asm goto`, only asm goto without outputs were still being
> marked as
The manual references asm goto as being implicitly volatile already
and that was done when asm goto could not have outputs. When outputs
were added to `asm goto`, only asm goto without outputs were still being
marked as volatile. Now some parts of GCC decide, removing the `asm goto`
is ok if the ou
